[HAM] Wax caps measured and then placed in four pans....

[OF]

At 03:18 PM 11/22/2006, Don Erickson wrote:
>On Wed, 22 Nov 2006, OF wrote:
> > You don't seem to "get" that each filter had a cap specifically picked to
> > get the best resonance for each filter. There would be no such thing as an
> > organ "originally capped from the 'high' value pan." Each organ would have
> > had caps picked from all four pans.
>
>Right, I didn't "get" that.  I thought that the whole point of matching
>the caps was, to get matching caps.  It seems like using values all over
>the map sort of negates the point.

Not at all. It's just the opposite, actually. The filters were of varying 
tolerance, therefore needed to be specifically matched to a cap that would 
achieve the highest resonance with that filter. This is why Hammond would 
not sell a cap or a filter by itself-- only a matched set-- cap and filter 
together. Knowing this proves that "caps in a bag," no matter how well 
matched to each other, can't do the job with any integrity. Bob Scarborough 
was an extremely knowledgeable and capable EE who worked for Bell Labs, or 
was it Western Electric(?) for many years. He understood this without any 
trouble, and his insistence on this point (and maybe his manner of 
expressing it) cost him his Hamtech membership. "Somebody" was going to 
sue. "Caps in a bag" has been good business for some people, and they rely 
on the difficulty that most people have in grasping the engineering reality 
here. "Matched" sounds rully rully good, right? It MUST be good-- matched 
tubes 'R' good, aren't they?

>Then, if what you're saying is true, the whole "matched caps" argument is
>fallacious.

NOW you got it!